“Lengthen Your Tent-Cords”

SiphrutLiterature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures

Editorial Board

Stephen B. Chapman Duke UniversityTremper Longman III Westmont CollegeNathan MacDonald University of Cambridge

1. A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament, by Mark J. Boda 2. Chosen and Unchosen: Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and Jewish-

Christian Interpretation, by Joel N. Lohr 3. Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, by Konrad

Schmid 4. The Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel: Theologies of Territory in the Hebrew

Bible, by David Frankel 5. Jacob and the Divine Trickster: A Theology of Deception and Yhwh’s Fidelity to the

Ancestral Promise in the Jacob Cycle, by John E. Anderson 6. Esther: The Outer Narrative and the Hidden Reading, by Jonathan Grossman 7. From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis,

by Matthew R. Schlimm 8. The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigatio`n of the “Fathers” in Deuteronomy, by

Jerry Hwang 9. In the Beginning: Essays on Creation Motifs in the Bible and the Ancient Near East,

by Bernard F. Batto10. Run, David, Run! An Investigation of the Theological Speech Acts of David’s

Departure and Return (2 Samuel 14–20), by Steven T. Mann11. From the Depths of Despair to the Promise of Presence: A Rhetorical Reading of the

Book of Joel, by Joel Barker12. Forming God: Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch, by Anne Katherine

Knafl13. Standing in the Breach: An Old Testament Theology and Spirituality of Intercessory

Prayer, by Michael Widmer14. What Kind of God? Collected Essays of Terence E. Fretheim, edited by Michael J.

Chan and Brent A. Strawn15. The “Image of God” in the Garden of Eden: The Creation of Humankind in

Genesis 2:5–3:24 in Light of the mīs pî pīt pî and wpt-r Rituals of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt, by Catherine L. McDowell

16. The Shape of the Writings, edited by Julius Steinberg and Timothy J. Stone17. A Message from the Great King: Reading Malachi in Light of Ancient Persian Royal

Messenger Texts from the Time of Xerxes, by R. Michael Fox18. “See and Read All These Words”: The Concept of the Written in the Book of Jeremiah,

by Chad L. Eggleston19. Identity in Conflict: The Struggle between Esau and Jacob, Edom and Israel,

by Elie Assis20. I, You, and the Word “God”: Finding Meaning in the Song of Songs,

by Sarah Zhang21. The Completion of Judges: Strategies of Ending in Judges 17–21,

by David J. H. Beldman22. A (S)Word against Babylon: An Examination of the Multiple Speech Act Layers

within Jeremiah 50–51, by Kristopher Holroyd23. “Lengthen Your Tent Cords”: The Metaphorical World of Israel’s Household in the

Book of Isaiah, by Brittany Kim

“Lengthen Your Tent-Cords”: The Metaphorical World

of Israel’s Household in the Book of Isaiah

Brittany Kim

University Park, Pennsylvania EisEnbrauns

2018

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Kim, Brittany, author.Title: “Lengthen your tent-cords” : the metaphorical world of Israel’s

household in the book of Isaiah / Brittany Kim.Other titles: Siphrut.Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns,

[2018] | Series: Siphrut : literature and theology of the Hebrew scriptures | Includes bibliographical references.

Summary: “Explores how the Book of Isaiah portrays Israel and its capital city using five metaphors that arise from the realm of household relationships: sons/children, daughter, mother, wife, and servant”—Provided by publisher.

Identifiers: LCCN 2018007168 | ISBN 9781575067780 (cloth : alk. paper)Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Isaiah—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Bible.

Isaiah—Language, style. | Metaphor in the Bible.Classification: LCC BS1515.52 .K56 2018 | DDC 224/.1066—dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018007168

Copyright © 2018 The Pennsylvania State UniversityAll rights reservedPrinted in the United States of AmericaPublished by The Pennsylvania State University Press,University Park, PA 16802–1003

Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press.

The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses.

It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ANSI Z39.48–1992.

To my husbandfor his חסד עולם

and to Eliana and Nathanael,who have helped me graspYhwh’s maternal נחם

vii

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1The Aims of This Study 1Method 5Chapter Summary 16

2. The People of Israel as Sons/Children . . . . . . . . . 17Sons or Children? 17Associated Commonplaces of the Vehicle: Children 18The People of Israel as Yhwh’s Children 19The People of Israel as Zion’s Sons/Children 35Conclusion 50

3. Zion and the People as Daughter(s) . . . . . . . . . . 51Associated Commonplace of the Vehicle: Daughters 51Daughter Zion/Jerusalem 52Daughter, My People 76The Women of Israel as Zion’s Daughters 78The Women of Israel as Yhwh’s Daughters 83Conclusion 84

4. Zion as Mother and Wife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86Zion as Mother of the People of Israel 86Zion as Yhwh’s Wife 109Zion as Wife of Her Sons: Isaiah 62:4, 5 129Conclusion 131

5. Israel, an Unnamed Representative, Zion, and the Faithful People as Yhwh’s Servant(s) . . . . . . . . 132

Associated Commonplaces of the Vehicle: Servants 132Ancient Near Eastern Background 134The Use of the Metaphor Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible 134Jacob/Israel as Yhwh’s Servant 136An Unnamed Representative of Israel as Yhwh’s Servant 153Zion as Yhwh’s Servant: Isaiah 51:22 168The Faithful People as Yhwh’s Servants 169Conclusion 178

Contentsviii

6. Conclusion: Integrating the Metaphors—A Portrait of the People of Yhwh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Yhwh’s Children vis-à-vis His Servant(s) 180Lady Zion vis-à-vis the Servant 182The Significance of Gender 184Distinguishing between Zion’s Feminine Roles 186Israel and Zion as Members of Yhwh’s Royal Household 187Conclusion 190

Appendix 1: Distribution Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Appendix 2: Overview of Passages. . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Appendix 3:Texts with Implied Metaphors . . . . . . . . 200

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

ix

Acknowledgments

This monograph is a revised form of my doctoral dissertation, which could not have been completed without the support and help of so many. I would first like to thank Robert A. Bourne, whose generous donations to the Wheaton doctoral program funded my course of study. I am also grateful for the community of professors and students at Wheaton College, who stimulated my thinking in many ways and provided encouragement and help throughout each stage of my graduate study. In particular, Drs. John Walton and Karen Jobes mentored me throughout my Masters and PhD programs, offering invaluable counsel and support. And as my second reader, Dr. Daniel Block made himself available to assist me in any way he could and gave me excellent feedback on an earlier version of this study that helped me improve both its content and style.

Most importantly, however, I must thank my Doktorvater, Dr. Richard Schultz, who took a chance on an unknown TA and ended up with a PhD student. He invested countless hours in directing my course of study, guid-ing my research and writing, promoting my interests, and looking after my spiritual and emotional well-being. I am so grateful for his careful attention to my work and for the example he set of balancing rigorous scholarship with a pastoral concern for the church.

I am also thankful for the friends and family who made it possible for me to devote so much time to my studies and who encouraged me along the way. Thanks especially to Rahel Schafer, Sarah Elmer, and Emily Thomas for their friendship and support and to Laura Race, Lizzi Wolfson, Beth Clark, Patsy Harrington, and my sister-in-law Stacey Jones, for their help with childcare. Thanks also to my dad, Sam Jones, who passed away a few years ago; my mom, Cheryl; my brother, Jason; my sister, Catherine, for always believing in me and encouraging me to pursue my dreams. And thanks to my husband, Ted, who has been my rock and has made countless sacrifices for my academic pursuits. I could not have done any of this with-out him. Finally, thanks be to God for calling me to this work, for opening the door for me to do a PhD, and for carrying me through all the ups and downs of my journey.

All translations of the biblical text throughout this work are mine unless otherwise noted.

x

Abbreviations

AB Anchor BibleABD Freedman, D. N., editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. Garden

City, NY: Doubleday, 1992ABR Australian Biblical ReviewAcT Acta TheologicaAfOB Archiv für Orientforschung: BeiheftANETS Ancient Near Eastern Texts and StudiesAOAT Alter Orient und Altes TestamentArBib The Aramaic BibleAS Assyriological StudiesBA Biblical ArchaeologistBBR Bulletin for Biblical ResearchBCOT Baker Commentary on the Old TestamentBETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensiumBH Bible in HistoryBib BiblicaBibInt Biblical InterpretationBibJudS Biblical and Judaic StudiesBIS Biblical Interpretation SeriesBK Bibel und KircheBN Biblische NotizenBRev Bible ReviewBSac Bibliotheca SacraBTB Biblical Theology BulletinBZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche WissenschaftCAD Gelb, Ignace J., et al., editors. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental

Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. (A–Z). Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2011

CBQ Catholic Biblical QuarterlyCBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph SeriesCC Continental CommentariesCHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near EastCI Critical InquiryCogLin Cognitive LinguisticsConBOT Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament SeriesConJ Concordia JournalCOS Hallo, W. W., and K. L. Younger Jr., editors. The Context of Scripture. 3

vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2003CTJ Calvin Theological JournalCTU Dietrich, M.; Loretz, O.; and Sanmartín, J., editors. The Cuneiform

Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995

Abbreviations xi

CurTM Currents in Theology and MissionDBATB Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament und seiner Rezeption in der

Alten Kirche, BeiheftDCH Clines, D. J. A., editor. Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 9 vols. Sheffield:

Sheffield Phoenix, 1993–2014DD Dor le DorDJD Discoveries in the Judean DesertDL Davar LogosDTIB Vanhoozer, K. J., editor. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the

Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005EA Knudtzon, J. A., editor. Die El-Amarna Tafeln. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1915.

Reissued, Aalen, 1964. Continued in A. F. Rainey, El-Amarna Tablets, 359–379. 2nd rev. ed. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1978

EBib Etudes BibliquesECC Eerdmans Critical CommentaryEIAHG Eretz-Israel Archaeological, Historical and Geographical StudiesEnc EncounterEuroJTh European Journal of TheologyEvQ Evangelical QuarterlyExpTim Expository TimesFAT Forschungen zum Alten TestamentFB Forschung zur BibelFCB Feminist Companion to the BibleFRC The Family, Religion, and CultureFRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen

TestamentsFTL Forum theologiae linguisticaeGBS Guides to Biblical ScholarshipGKC Kautzsch, E., editor. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E.

Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910HAR Hebrew Annual ReviewHBS Herders biblische StudienHBT Horizons in Biblical TheologyHKAT Handkommentar zum Alten TestamentHS Hebrew StudiesHSM Harvard Semitic MonographsHTKAT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten TestamentHTR Harvard Theological ReviewIB Buttrick, G. A., et al., editors. Interpreter’s Bible. 12 vols. New York:

Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951–57IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and PreachingIBHS Waltke, B. K., and O’Connor, M. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew

Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990ICC International Critical CommentaryInt InterpretationJAAR Journal of the American Academy of ReligionJANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia UniversityJAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society

Abbreviationsxii

JBL Journal of Biblical LiteratureJBQ Jewish Bible QuarterlyJBS Jerusalem Biblical StudiesJCS Journal of Cuneiform StudiesJETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological SocietyJNES Journal of Near Eastern StudiesJNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic LanguagesJPSTC The JPS Torah CommentaryJSem Journal for SemiticsJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentJSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement SeriesJSS Journal of Semitic StudiesJTAK Journal of Theta Alpha KappaKAI Donner, H., and Röllig, W. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3

vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1962–64LAI Library of Ancient IsraelLCBI Literary Currents in Biblical InterpretationLCL Loeb Classical LibraryLD Lectio divinaLHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament StudiesLUÅ Lunds universitets årsskriftNAC New American CommentaryNCB New Century BibleNIB The New Interpreter’s BibleNICOT The New International Commentary on the Old TestamentNIDOTTE VanGemeren, W. A., editor. New International Dictionary of Old

Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997

NIVAC NIV Application CommentaryNSBT New Studies in Biblical TheologyNTDH Neukirchener Theologische Dissertationen und HabilitationenOBO Orbis biblicus et orientalisOPKF Occasional Publications of the S. N. Kramer FundOTL Old Testament LibraryOTE Old Testament EssaysOtSt Oudtestamentische StudiënPoet. Aristotle, PoeticsPSac Philippinana SacraPSB Princeton Seminary BulletinQD Quaestiones disputataeRA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientaleRB Revue BibliqueResQ Restoration QuarterlyRevExp Review and ExpositorRhet. Aristotle, The Art of RhetoricRINAP The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian PeriodRTR Reformed Theological ReviewSAHL Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant

Abbreviations xiii

SBLAIL Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its LiteratureSBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation SeriesSBLEJIL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its LiteratureSBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar PapersSBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium SeriesSBLWAW Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient WorldScEs Science et espritScrCon Scripture in ContextSemeiaSt Semeia StudiesSFSMD Studia Francisci Scholten memoriae dicataSJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old TestamentSJT Scottish Journal of TheologySRR Studies in Rhetoric and ReligionSSN Studia semitica neerlandicaStBL Studies in Biblical LiteratureStPB Studia post-biblicaSwJT Southwestern Journal of TheologyTCT Textual Criticism and the TranslatorTDOT Botterweck, G. J., and Ringgren, H., editors. Theological Dictionary of

the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974–2006TJ Trinity JournalTL Theology and LifeTranseu TranseuphratèneTTJ Trinity Theological JournalTynBul Tyndale BulletinUF Ugarit-ForschungenUNP Parker, Simon B., editor. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Society of Biblical

Literature Writings from the Ancient World 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997

VT Vetus TestamentumVTSup Vetus Testamentum SupplementsWBC Word Biblical CommentaryWestBC Westminster Bible CompanionWMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen TestamentWUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen TestamentWW Word and WorldZABR Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische RechtsgeschichteZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

The Aims of This Study

From beginning to end, the book of Isaiah teems with metaphors, inter-woven like threads in an intricate tapestry, forming distinct and beautiful patterns, while occasionally seeming to get tangled up in a chaotic mass of clashing colors. Certain strands appear and disappear only to reappear later, giving off new hues against a different background. Tracing these threads both separately and in relation to one another can give us a bet-ter grasp of the complex realities they depict. This monograph examines the five metaphors for Israel and its capital city arising from the realm of household relationships—sons/children, daughter(s), mother, wife, and servant(s)—exploring their development throughout the book of Isaiah as well as the interrelationships between them. These metaphors intertwine to produce a complicated portrait of the relationships involving people, city, and Yhwh as each party occupies multiple positions in the household order.

Yet despite the apparent conflicts between them, a few scholars have noted the usefulness of approaching these metaphors together. For exam-ple, in connection with his work on Hosea, J. Andrew Dearman asks “if it is not possible to see the different roles of spouse, parent and child . . . as part of a larger root metaphor of the family (or better household) in Israel’s cultural milieu” and suggests that seeing Israel as “Yhwh’s house” might provide “the conceptual key to the familial imagery.” 1 Moreover, Leo Per-due acknowledges the centrality of these metaphors in Israelite thought, contending that “the household .  .  . became the primary lens through which to view the character and activity of God [and] the identity and self-understanding of Israel in its relationship to God.” 2

1. J. Andrew Dearman, “Yhwh’s House: Gender Roles and Metaphors for Israel in Hosea,” JNSL 25 (1999) 106–7; see also idem, “Daughter Zion and Her Place in God’s Household,” HBT 31 (2009) 155; as well as Leila Leah Bronner, “Gynomorphic Imagery in Exilic Isaiah (40–66),” DD 12 (1983) 82, who contends that “the family is the centre of all [Second Isaiah’s] metaphors, similes and personifications.”

2. Leo G. Perdue, “The Household, Old Testament Theology, and Contemporary Hermeneutics,” in Families in Ancient Israel (ed. Leo G. Perdue et al.; FRC; Louisville: West-minster John Knox, 1997) 225; similarly, James A. Sanders, “The Family in the Bible,” BTB 32 (2002) 122. J. David Schloen argues that the household played a crucial role in ANE thought more generally, stating that “an interlocking set of metaphors drawn from

Chapter 12

Thus, while earlier studies have examined the parent-child relationship between Yhwh and Israel; the female personification of Zion in her roles as daughter, wife, and mother; and the servant theme, 3 this monograph takes as its point of departure the assumption that these metaphors are part of a root metaphor of the household and therefore that new insights will emerge from studying them together. Kathryn Pfisterer Darr takes a similar approach in Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of God, 4 though she does not seek to integrate her discussions of Israel as Yhwh’s rebellious children and Zion

traditional household relationships—‘father,’ ‘son,’ ‘brother,’ ‘master,’ ‘servant,’ ‘heir,’ etc., each of which could evoke the root metaphor of the ‘house of the father’ . . . were creatively applied in a wide variety of situations beyond the ordinary household, serv-ing to mediate and motivate social action of many kinds” (The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East [SAHL 2; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001] 1).

3. Parent-child relationship: See, e.g., Sarah J. Dille, Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah ( JSOTSup 398; London: T&T Clark, 2004); Norbert Clemens Baumgart, “Wenn Jhwh Kinder erzieht: Zum Gottesbild im Jesajabuch aus religionsge-schichtlicher und kanonisch-intertextueller Perspektive,” in Das Echo des Propheten Jesaja: Beiträge zu seiner vielfältigen Rezeption (ed. Norbert Clemens Baumgart and Gerhard Ring-shausen; Münster: LIT, 2004) 1–43; Maria Häusl, “Gott als Vater und Mutter und die Sohn-schaft des Volkes in der Prophetie: Rezeption mythischer Vorstellungen,” in Mythisches in biblischer Bildsprache: Gestalt und Verwandlung in Prophetie und Psalmen (ed. Hubert Irsigler; QD 209; Freiburg: Herder, 2004) 258–89; David R. Tasker, Ancient Near Eastern Literature and the Hebrew Scriptures about the Fatherhood of God (StBL 69; New York: Peter Lang, 2004); Richard D. Patterson, “Parental Love as a Metaphor for Divine-Human Love,” JETS 46 (2003) 205–16.

Female personification: E.g., Odil Hannes Steck, “Zion als Gelände und Gestalt: Über-legungen zur Wahrnehmung Jerusalems als Stadt und Frau im Alten Testament,” in Got-tesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja (FAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992) 126–45; Christl M. Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008); A. van der Woude, “The Comfort of Zion: Per-sonification in Isaiah 40–66,” in “Enlarge the Site of Your Tent”: The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah (ed. Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen and Annemarieke van der Woude; OtSt 58; Leiden: Brill, 2011) 159–67; Carleen R. Mandolfo, Daughter Zion Talks Back to the Prophets: A Dialogic Theology of the Book of Lamentations (SemeiaSt 58; Atlanta: SBL, 2007) 159–67; Ulrich Berges, “Personifications and Prophetic Voices of Zion in Isaiah and Beyond,” in The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Art-ist (ed. Johannes C. de Moor; OtSt 45; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 54–82.

Servant theme: E.g., Antony Tharekadavil, Servant of Yahweh in Second Isaiah: Isaianic Servant Passages in Their Literary and Historical Context (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2007); Ulrich Berges, “The Literary Construction of the Servant in Isaiah 40–55: A Dis-cussion about Individual and Collective Identities,” SJOT 24 (2010) 28–38; Jürgen Wer-litz, “Vom Gottesknecht der Lieder zum Gottesknecht des Buches,” BK 61 (2006) 208–11; Christopher R. Seitz, “‘You Are My Servant, You Are the Israel in Whom I Will Be Glo-rified’: The Servant Songs and the Effect of Literary Context in Isaiah,” CTJ 39 (2004) 117–34; H. G. M. Williamson, Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998) 113–66; Peter Wilcox and David Paton-Williams, “The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah,” JSOT 42 (1988) 79–102.

4. Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of God (LCBI; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994).

Introduction 3

as daughter, wife, and mother. 5 Moreover, since Darr limits her focus to the familial metaphors, she does not give significant attention to the servant image. However, servants were integral members of the household (בת־אב) in ancient Israelite society, 6 and the servant metaphor is deeply intercon-nected with the familial metaphors in Isaiah 40–66.

Since the influential commentary of Bernhard Duhm in 1892, 7 most studies of the servant in Isaiah have isolated four “Servant Songs”—42:1–4 [or 1–9], 49:1–6[or 1–13], 50:4–9[or 4–11], 52:13–53:12—and focused on identifying the anonymous servant figure depicted therein. Over the last few decades, the tide has slowly been changing, and many scholars have ar-gued that these four servant texts must be read in the context of the larger theme of Israel as Yhwh’s servant(s) as presented in Isaiah 40–66. 8 However, studying the servant image as part of the root metaphor of the household provides a new frame of reference for Isaiah’s servant texts, which invites reflection on what the metaphor conveys about the relationship between Yhwh and his servant(s) and raises questions about how the book’s por-trayal of Israel as Yhwh’s servant(s) relates to its depiction of the people as his sons/children. This study ultimately suggests that due to the people’s tendency to rely on Yhwh’s parental protection regardless of their own be-havior, the latter chapters of Isaiah reimage the people as Yhwh’s servants to drive home the point that only those who honor Yhwh as master will enjoy the privileges accorded to his children.

In this study, I also build on the work of several scholars who have noted intriguing parallels between Lady Zion and the servant figure in Isaiah 40–66, particularly in chaps. 49–54. 9 Although some argue that these two

5. Also, given her focus on Israel as rebellious children, she incorporates into her study passages that use rebellion terminology but do not explicitly refer to the people as children. Moreover, she does not address the portrayals of the people as Yhwh’s בנים in 43:6 and 45:11.

6. See, e.g., Exod 20:10; Daniel I. Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel,” in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World (ed. Ken M. Campbell; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 2003) 38.

7. Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja: übersetzt und erklärt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892).

8. See n. 3 above.9. E.g., Leland Edward Wilshire, “The Servant-City: A New Interpretation of the ‘Ser-

vant of the Lord’ in the Servant Songs of Deutero-Isaiah,” JBL 94 (1975) 356–67; idem, “Jerusalem as the ‘Servant City’ in Isaiah 40–66: Reflections in the Light of Further Study of the Cuneiform Tradition,” in The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III (ed. William W. Hallo, Bruce William Jones, and Gerald L. Mattingly; ANETS 8; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1990) 231–55; John F. A. Sawyer, “Daughter of Zion and Servant of the Lord in Isaiah: A Comparison,” JSOT 44 (1989) 89–107; Knud Jeppesen, “Mother Zion, Father Servant: A Reading of Isaiah 49–55,” in Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages (ed. Heather A. McKay and David J. A. Clines; JSOTSup 162; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 109–25; Patricia Tull Willey, “The Servant of Yhwh and Daughter Zion: Alternating Visions of Yhwh’s Community,” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1995 (SBLSP 34; At-lanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 267–303; Marjo C. A. Korpel, “The Female Servant of the Lord

Chapter 14

figures should be equated—that is, that the servant is simply one more metaphor used to depict Zion 10—I contend that the two figures have dif-ferent roles, which are tied to their respective metaphorical portrayals un-derstood against their historical-cultural background. The male servant actively accomplishes Yhwh’s deliverance on behalf of Zion and her chil-dren, whereas Zion in her dependent female roles as daughter, wife, and mother is almost entirely a passive recipient of that deliverance, though by the end of Isaiah she takes a more active role in the care of her children (see 66:7–12).

Thus, in this monograph I seek to go beyond current research on these household metaphors by examining the interrelationships between them. Although this synthesizing work has already begun in studies comparing the servant and Lady Zion, little attention has been given to the possible connections between the other household metaphors, for example, be-tween the sons/children image and the daughter or servant images. 11

However, this monograph also makes a significant contribution by ex-amining each metaphor separately to see how it is used throughout the book of Isaiah. While most studies of Lady Zion (in Isaiah or the HB as a whole) analyze the female personification of Zion without clearly dis-tinguishing between her roles as daughter, wife, and mother, 12 this study considers the unique contribution each of these female metaphors makes to the book’s complex characterization of Zion and then explores the inter-relationships between them. 13 One observation that emerges from this ap-proach is that Isaiah uses the daughter metaphor to portray an unbreakable relationship between Zion and Yhwh, which transcends the rift of exile (see 49:14–15, 52:2, 62:11), while the wife metaphor presents the possibility of a complete relational rupture in its discussion of divorce (50:1, though see the marital reconciliation in 54:4–10). 14

in Isaiah 54,” in On Reading Prophetic Texts: Gender-Specific and Related Studies in Memory of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes (ed. Bob Becking and Meindert Dijkstra; BIS 18; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 153–67; Sue Ann Fry, “From Suffering to Restoration: The Relationship between the Unnamed Servant and Zion in Isaiah 40–55” (Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2006).

10. See especially Wilshire, “Servant City,” 367.11. Though not focused on Isaiah, Häusl observes the need for a comparative study of

the son and daughter images (“Gott als Vater,” 260 n. 19).12. See, e.g., Darr, Isaiah’s Vision, 124–204; Mandolfo, Daughter Zion; Woude, “Com-

fort of Zion,” 159–67; Sawyer, “Daughter of Zion,” 89–107; John J. Schmitt, “The City as Woman in Isaiah 1–39,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (ed. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans; 2 vols.; VTSup 70; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 1:95–119.

13. For a similar approach, see Maier, Daughter Zion, 60, though she combines the metaphors at points because her primary organizing scheme is narratival (esp. chap. 6); also Julia M. O’Brien, Challenging Prophetic Metaphor: Theology and Ideology in the Prophets (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008) 143; Dearman, “Daughter Zion,” 156.

14. Unless otherwise noted, I am using “Isaiah” to designate the book in its final form rather than the eighth-century prophet.

Introduction 5

Moreover, whereas previous studies of the father-son or parent-child re-lationship between Yhwh and Israel have generally emphasized the divine side of the relationship (sometimes treating only those texts that explicitly call Yhwh “father”), this monograph focuses primarily on how the meta-phor contributes to Isaiah’s characterization of Israel. And in contrast to the many scholars who have sought to determine the identity of the in-dividual servant in the “Servant Songs,” I seek to determine what Isaiah’s use of the servant metaphor (applied both to Israel and to an unnamed representative of Israel) conveys about what it means to be Yhwh’s people.

Method

Dramatic Progression in Isaiah

In this study, I do not presuppose any particular theory of the book’s composition but operate under the assumption that Isaiah can be read as a coherent whole. After more than a century of Isaiah scholarship focused on redaction-critical issues, many scholars have recently noted that, whatever the book’s origins, several unifying features appear throughout its three major sections. These common images, themes, and motifs serve as evi-dence of an intentional shaping of the final form of the book and provide a foundation for reading the book as “a complex unity.” 15

Indeed, as some scholars have argued, Isaiah even seems to exhibit “dra-matic progression.” In other words, a narrative strand—or perhaps a col-lection of interconnected narrative strands—runs through the book as later passages build on earlier passages to develop the story. This is perhaps clear-est in Isaiah 40–55, which describes the restoration of Israel and Zion after the exile, accomplished through Cyrus and Yhwh’s servant. 16 Yet elements of dramatic progression can be found throughout Isaiah, leading Chris-topher Seitz to describe the book as “The Drama of God and Zion.” 17 It

15. Rolf Rendtorff, “The Book of Isaiah—A Complex Unity: Synchronic and Dia-chronic Reading,” in New Visions of Isaiah (ed. Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney; JSOTSup 214; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) 32–49; see also idem, “The Composi-tion of the Book of Isaiah,” in Canon and Theology (ed. and trans. Margaret Kohl; Minne-apolis: Fortress, 1993) 146–69; Roy F. Melugin, The Formation of Isaiah 40–55 (BZAW 141; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976); Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 325–38; Ronald E. Clements, “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah,” Int 36 (1982) 117–29; idem, “Beyond Tradition History: Deutero-Isaianic Develop-ment of First Isaiah’s Themes,” JSOT 31 (1985) 95–113; Richard J. Clifford, “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah and Its Cosmogonic Language,” CBQ 55 (1993) 1–17; Christopher R. Seitz, “Isaiah 1–66: Making Sense of the Whole,” in Reading and Preaching the Book of Isaiah (ed. Christopher R. Seitz; Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion, 2002) 105–26.

16. See the discussion by Richtsje Abma, who draws on the Dutch writings of Willem A. M. Beuken and H. Leene in applying the concept of “dramatic progression” to Isaiah 40–55 (Bonds of Love: Methodic Studies of Prophetic Texts with Marriage Imagery, Isaiah 50:1–3 and 54:1–10, Hosea 1–3, Jeremiah 2–3 [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1999] 57–61).

17. Seitz, “Isaiah 1–66,” 122; see also Robin L. Routledge, “Is There a Narrative Sub-structure Underlying the Book of Isaiah?” TynBul 55 (2004) 183–204.

Chapter 16

should be made clear that I am not here advocating identifying the book’s genre as a performative drama. 18 Any attempt to identify speakers for each verse in Isaiah is speculative, and the book does not display the high degree of coherence from text to text that would be required in a dramatic perfor-mance. 19 My claim is more modest, namely, that there is development in the situation of Israel and Zion from the beginning of the book to its con-clusion so that particular passages can best be read in light of where they fit into that development.

The book’s framing chapters (chaps. 1 and 65–66) provide the basic outlines of this drama. 20 At the beginning of the book Yhwh’s people are rebellious children who have forsaken their divine parent (1:2–4), and “Daughter Zion” (v. 8) is a harlot, full of injustice (vv. 21–23). But Yhwh promises to purify Zion and deliver the repentant, while bringing judg-ment against those who persist in rebellion (vv. 24–31). Thus he calls his people to turn from their sins and “seek justice” (vv. 16–17) so that they may enjoy the blessings of restoration (v. 19). By the book’s end, Yhwh’s children have been separated into two parties. Those who have heeded his warnings—now called his “servants”—inherit a new heavens and a new earth (65:8–25) and delight in the abundant nourishment provided by a restored Mother Zion (66:7–14). The rebels, by contrast, face deprivation, despair, and ultimately destruction (65:11–15, 66:24).

As can be seen from this brief sketch of Isaiah’s programmatic introduc-tion and conclusion, metaphors derived from household relationships play a significant role in the book’s dramatic progression. Thus, after reading sequentially through the book to see how a particular metaphor is used, in my summary section I step back to consider how it relates to Isaiah’s

18. As, e.g., John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33 (rev. ed.; WBC 24; Waco, TX: Word, 2005); idem, Isaiah 34–66 (rev. ed.; WBC 25; Waco, TX: Word, 2005); and with regard to Isaiah 40–55, Klaus Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55 (trans. Margaret Kohl; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001); as well as Richtsje Abma’s comments concerning “the ‘lost stage directions’ in Isaiah 49–55” in “Travelling from Babylon to Zion: Location and Its Function in Isaiah 49–55,” JSOT 74 (1997) 28.

19. For further critique of this view, see John G. F. Wilks, “The Prophet as Incompetent Dramatist,” VT 53 (2003) 530–43.

20. On the connections between Isaiah 1 and 65–66 and their significance for under-standing the book as a whole, see, e.g., Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition (BZAW 171; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988) 22–24; David McLain Carr, “Reading Isaiah from Beginning (Isaiah 1) to End (Isaiah 65–66): Multiple Modern Possibilities,” in New Visions of Isaiah (ed. Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney; JSOTSup 214; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 188–218; Emmanuel Uchenna Dim, The Eschatological Implications of Isa 65 and 66 as the Conclusion of the Book of Isaiah (BH 3; Bern: Peter Lang, 2005) 290–94, also 274–78, 282–84; K. D. Jenner, “Jerusalem, Zion and the Unique Servant of Yhwh in the New Heaven and the New Earth: A Study on Recover-ing Identity versus Lamenting Faded Glory (Isaiah 1–5 and 65–66),” in “Enlarge the Site of Your Tent”: The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah (ed. Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen and Annemarieke van der Woude; OtSt 58; Leiden: Brill, 2011) 169–72.

Introduction 7

broader narrative development. In my detailed analysis of each metaphor, my primary focus is on discerning the rhetorical function of each meta-phorical appearance within its larger context. In other words, I want to know why these metaphors in particular are used and what role they play in the communicative aim encoded in the text. 21 Thus, I selectively employ resources from both metaphor theory and rhetorical criticism.

Metaphor

Recent years have seen an increasing interest in metaphor among bibli-cal scholars, 22 partly in response to modern theories of metaphor offered in the last several decades by linguists, philosophers, and even scientists, who have pointed out its pervasiveness in everyday life and its importance for our processes of conceptualization. 23 The ubiquity of metaphor is es-pecially true in the case of religious language, which depends heavily on metaphor to explain the abstract or transcendent by means of the concrete or immanent. Indeed, the Bible itself is replete with metaphor, particularly in the poetic texts of the prophets. Thus, our understanding of the pro-phetic messages depends in large measure on our ability to grasp their uses of metaphor.

How Metaphors WorkThe classic definition of metaphor offered by Aristotle describes it as

deviant naming, that is, “the application of a word that belongs to another thing: either from genus to species, species to genus, species to species, or by analogy” (Poet. 1457b [Halliwell, LCL]). Although Aristotle valued the ability to metaphorize well (to recognize resemblances; cf. Poet. 1459a), his view eventually devolved into a denigration of metaphor as a merely stylistic feature that confuses pure and literal logic. According to this un-derstanding, a metaphor involves an unnecessary substitution of one term for another and can thus be translated by reversing the substitution and

21. My hermeneutical approach is to seek to determine the communicative aim of the implied author, rather than the real author, whose identity may be in question. For more on this, see Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).

22. For a few recent examples, see Alison Ruth Gray, Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures: A Reading through Metaphor (BIS 127; Leiden: Brill, 2014); Edward J. Bridge, “The Metaphoric Use of Slave Terms in the Hebrew Bible,” BBR 23 (2013) 26; Maria Häusl, “Verkörpertes Leben: Körperbilder und -konzepte im Alten Testament,” BK 67 (2012) 10–15; Andrea L. Weiss, “A New Approach to Metaphor in Biblical Poetry,” in Mishneh Todah (ed. Nili Sacher Fox, David A. Glatt-Gilad, and Michael J. Williams; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009) 475–86; idem, Figurative Language in Biblical Prose Narrative: Metaphor in the Book of Samuel (VTSup 107; Leiden: Brill, 2006); and the collection of essays in P. van Hecke, ed., Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (BETL 187; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005).

23. See George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980) 3; Max Black, Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philoso-phy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962) 236–43.

Chapter 18

recovering the original literal expression. 24 In response to this substitution theory, many scholars now argue (1) that metaphors are not merely stylis-tic forms of expression but are patterns of thinking, (2) that metaphorical expressions must be considered at the level of the discourse unit and con-ceptual structure rather than at the level of individual words, and (3) that metaphorical expressions have a “surplus of meaning” and so cannot be exhausted by translation to literal language. 25

Max Black. Max Black explains the way metaphors work by means of a filtering image. Encountering the metaphor “man is a wolf,” a reader’s system of associated commonplaces related to the term wolf (the subsidiary subject) acts as a filter to organize her conception of man (the principle sub-ject). These associated commonplaces are culturally determined perceptions of the subsidiary subject that allow for shared meaning between author and reader, though they may also include novel associations introduced by the author. 26 The metaphor then “selects, emphasizes, suppresses, and organizes features of the principle subject” by applying to it language ap-propriate to the subsidiary subject. 27

By this means, metaphors do not merely give expression to similarities already recognized or even already existing between the principle and sub-sidiary subjects. Metaphors actually create new similarities, functioning as “‘cognitive instruments,’ indispensable for perceiving connections that, once perceived, are then truly present.” 28 Like maps, graphs, and lifelike paintings, metaphors depict “how things are,” though from a particular perspective, which is at least in part a construction. 29 For Black, however, this filtering is not an entirely one-way process; the subsidiary subject is also viewed in light of the principle subject. For example, the image of man as a wolf also “makes the wolf seem more human than he otherwise would.” 30 While many discussions of biblical metaphor draw on Black’s work, they more commonly use the earlier terminology of I. A. Richards,

24. For example, “Richard is a lion” simply means “Richard is brave,” because “lion” was substituted for “brave” (Black, Models and Metaphors, 36).

25. Paul Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Mean-ing (trans. Robert Czerny; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977) 87; Kevin J. Van-hoozer, Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in Hermeneutics and The-ology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 62–64.

26. Black, Models and Metaphors, 27, 40, 43. Since the commonplaces are cultural per-ceptions, they are not necessarily accurate depictions of reality. For example, the meta-phor may rely on a popular conception that wolves ferociously attack humans, even if they usually avoid interaction with people (George Lakoff and Mark Turner, More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989] 66).

27. Black, Models and Metaphors, 44.28. Max Black, “More about Metaphor,” in Metaphor and Thought (ed. A. Ortony; New

York: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 37. 29. Ibid., 39.30. Black, Models and Metaphors, 44, also pp. 37–41; Marjo C. A. Korpel, A Rift in the

Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990) 70–71.

Introduction 9

calling Black’s principle subject (man) the tenor and his subsidiary subject (wolf) the vehicle, 31 a practice that will be followed in this study.

Paul Ricoeur. Paul Ricoeur goes beyond Black, characterizing metaphor as “the rhetorical process by which discourse unleashes the power that certain fictions have to redescribe reality” and thus as having “the power to project and reveal a world.” 32 He approaches the problem of how a metaphor cre-ates new meaning by adopting the Wittgensteinian concept of “seeing as,” understood as a partly cognitive and partly experiential act by which the reader constructs the area of commonality between tenor and vehicle. 33 In this act, both imagination and feeling play a key role in realizing the metaphor’s “full cognitive intent.” 34 For Ricoeur, “feeling” designates not particular emotions but rather a participatory relationship with an object, which makes near what is distant. 35 If metaphor creates a world and of-fers a means of “seeing as,” then there is a certain degree of openness in interpreting it, allowing for the continual discovery of new connections. 36 Translating a metaphor to a list of similarities shared by tenor and vehicle prematurely closes off meaning, leading to a “loss in cognitive content.” 37

Janet Soskice. Like Ricoeur, Janet Soskice also builds on Black’s under-standing of metaphor but offers a couple helpful correctives to his propos-als. First, she points out the tension between Black’s (unidirectional) image of filtering and his idea of a two-way interaction between the principle and subsidiary subjects, as well as his failure to explain how the subsidiary subject (or vehicle) is modified by the principle subject (or tenor). 38 Second, she provides a helpful working definition of metaphor, which is absent from Black’s discussion, calling it, “that figure of speech whereby we speak

31. I. A. Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936) 96, 99. Black argues that Richards uses these terms somewhat inconsistently, sometimes referring to what Black sees as the two subjects of a metaphor, sometimes to their impli-cations, and sometimes to the metaphor’s “resultant meaning” (Models and Metaphors, 47 n. 23). This confusion may explain some differences in the definitions of these terms given throughout the literature (see, e.g., Darr, Isaiah’s Vision, 37; Ian Paul, “Metaphor,” DTIB 508; Korpel, Rift in the Clouds, 41). I am following what seems to be the most widespread use and appears most in accord with Richards’s definitions of the terms, regardless of his actual usage.

32. Ricoeur, Rule of Metaphor, 7, 93; see also Vanhoozer, Biblical Narrative in the Philoso-phy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in Hermeneutics and Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 65.

33. Ricoeur, Rule of Metaphor, 212–15; idem, “The Metaphorical Process as Cognition, Imagination, and Feeling,” CI 5 (1978) 150.

34. Ibid., 158, also p. 155.35. Ibid., 156; see also Vanhoozer, Biblical Narrative, 65–66.36. See Korpel, Rift in the Clouds, 74.37. That phrase is taken from Black, who also points out that such a list would be

unable to establish the relative weights of various aspects of the metaphor (Models and Metaphors, 46).

38. Janet Martin Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985) 42.

Chapter 110

about one thing [the tenor] in terms which are seen to be suggestive of another [the vehicle].” 39

This definition provides a foundation for distinguishing between living and dead metaphors. A dead metaphor applies language to the tenor that is no longer seen as inappropriate to it and thus is not “suggestive” of some-thing else. 40 For example, the designation of a table’s supports as “legs” no longer calls to mind the image of a body. Thus, only living metaphors evoke a generative model whereby the tenor is understood in terms of the vehicle. However, even dead metaphors can structure the way we concep-tualize the tenor, 41 and they can be revitalized by applying new aspects of the forgotten vehicle to the tenor. 42

The Conceptual Metaphor Theory of Cognitive Linguistics. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson emphasize how central metaphor is to our everyday thought processes in their seminal work, Metaphors We Live By, which intro-duces many of the basic tenets of the Conceptual Metaphor Theory emerg-ing from cognitive linguistics. They explain that we conceptualize abstract ideas such as time and causation in terms of structural metaphors rooted in experience, which then determine how we act. For example, because we typically see problems by means of a puzzle metaphor, we continually seek solutions to problems in order to bring about complete resolution. If we instead viewed our problems as chemical compounds, we might be more apt to focus on the interaction between them, recognizing that catalysts that resolve one problem may create or exacerbate others. 43

In a later publication, George Lakoff and Mark Turner use the terminol-ogy of source (vehicle) and target (tenor) to speak of metaphor as mapping aspects of the source domain onto the target domain. 44 A metaphor high-lights those aspects of the target that fit the source, while downplaying or hiding aspects that are inconsistent with the source. Ultimately, the meta-

39. Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language, 44–46, also 15, emphasis in the original; similarly, Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 5; Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985) 189.

40. Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language, 73. 41. Zoltán Kövecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2nd ed.; New York: Oxford Uni-

versity Press, 2010), xi, who gives the example that we tend to think of the mind as a ma-chine and thus use expressions like “the workings of the mind.” See also Carol A. Newsom, “A Maker of Metaphors: Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre,” Int 38 (1984) 153, who argues that dead metaphors can be dangerous and even oppressive because they are no longer recog-nized as shaping our understanding.

42. See Gary Alan Long, “Dead or Alive? Literality and God-Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible,” JAAR 62 (1994) 524. As an example, Julie Galambush suggests, rightly or wrongly, that Ezekiel took “a traditional metaphor which must to some extent have been ‘dead’”—cities as female personas—and turned it into the “provocative and shocking image” of Jerusalem as a harlot (Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife [SBLDS 130; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992] 8).

43. Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 143–45.44. Lakoff and Turner, More Than Cool Reason, 38–39.

Introduction 11

phor “defines a structural similarity between the entire range of highlighted experiences,” 45 preserving the “image-schema structure” of the source. 46 Particular metaphorical expressions often invoke a conventional set of mappings between source and target, but a metaphor can be used in novel ways by drawing out other areas of correspondence. For example, Lakoff observes that the song lyric, “We’re driving in the fast lane on the freeway of love,” uses the conventional metaphor lovE-is-a-journEY (which produces statements like “the relationship isn’t going anywhere”) but evokes a new set of associations, emphasizing the excitement but also the risks of a relation-ship that moves quickly. 47

Conceptual Blending. A later development spinning out of the cognitive linguistic approach is the idea of Conceptual Blending. Whereas Concep-tual Metaphor Theory focuses on the two domains of source and target, Conceptual Blending argues that at least four mental spaces are interacting in a metaphor. Along with the two input spaces (roughly paralleling the source and target domains), there is also a generic space, which contains the abstract ideas shared by both source and target. More important, however, is the fourth blended space, where elements from the source and target are blended. 48 In a single-scope network the structure of one of the input spaces (the source) is projected into the blended space, but in a double- scope net-work the blend has emergent structure that does not correspond to either input. For example, the metaphorical expression “digging your own grave” conveys the ideas that (1) someone is engaging in behavior that will lead to a negative result and (2) they do not realize this causal connection. But the structure of the blended space is derived not from the source input space (gravedigging) but from the interaction between the two input spaces spaces (gravedigging and foolish-behavior-leads-to-a-negative-result). The metaphorical expression highlights the causal relationship between the person’s behavior and their coming downfall even though digging some-one’s grave does not cause their death. 49 Since many metaphors are single-scope networks, they may be adequately analyzed using the concepts of vehicle and tenor (or source-to-target mapping), but for some complex or mixed metaphors, the concept of conceptual blending is a helpful tool. 50

45. Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 152–53, also pp. 10–13, emphasis in the original.

46. See George Lakoff, “The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Im-age-Schemas?” CogLin 1 (1990) 54.

47. Idem, “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor,” in Metaphor and Thought (ed. An-drew Ortony; 2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 210; see also p. 206.

48. Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities (New York: Basic Books, 2002) 40–50.

49. Fauconnier and Turner, Way We Think, 126–35.50. For an example of how conceptual blending may be applied to a biblical metaphor,

see P. Van Hecke, “Conceptual Blending: A Recent Approach to Metaphor Illustrated with the Pastoral Metaphor in Hos 4,16,” in Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (ed. P. Van Hecke; BETL 187; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005) 215–31.

Chapter 112

Metaphor and Simile. While Isaiah relies primarily on metaphor to draw figurative comparisons between Israel and various household roles, the book occasionally employs similes in this regard. Formally, metaphors and similes are distinct—similes draw comparisons using “like” or “as,” whereas metaphors are grammatically unmarked. Whether there is any functional difference is, however, a matter of debate. Roland Frye sees a fundamen-tal distinction between them, contending that “whereas similes compare, metaphors predicate or name.” 51 Others, following Aristotle (Rhet. 1406–1407), contend that metaphors are simply elliptical similes. 52 As Korpel points out, many texts appear to use metaphors and similes interchange-ably. For example, it is unlikely that the writer(s) of Song of Songs intended any significant difference between the statements “your eyes are doves” (1:15b) and “his eyes are like doves” (5:12a). 53

Soskice sees a more complex relationship between metaphor and simile, distinguishing between illustrative and modeling similes. The former offer merely “point for point” comparisons of two objects, while the latter pres-ent one object as the conceptual framework for understanding another and thus are functionally equivalent to metaphors. Crucial to her distinction is the idea of “epistemic distance.” Soskice contends that if we have prior knowledge of both tenor and vehicle, we will compare them point-by-point. If, however, the tenor “is beyond our full grasp,” we will view the vehicle as a model for conceptualizing the tenor. 54

While I appreciate Soskice’s classification, I think a more helpful crite-rion for distinguishing between illustrative and modeling similes is the de-gree to which the point(s) of comparison are explicitly stated. A simile that offers no points of comparison invites hearers to create those connections for themselves and thus should be characterized as a modeling simile (e.g., Song 5:12a). 55 Similarly, an extended simile listing several points of com-parison might also invite further creative reflection on the relationship be-

51. Roland Frye, “Language for God and Feminist Language: A Literary and Rhetorical Analysis,” Int 43 (1989) 54; see also Black, “More about Metaphor,” 30; E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968) 727; Donald Davidson, “What Metaphors Mean,” in On Metaphor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978) 36–39.

52. Robert J. Fogelin, Figuratively Speaking (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988) 25, though he also suggests that “metaphors can have more force than their counter-part similes” (p. 27); see also G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 144; Aída Besançon Spencer, “Father Ruler: The Meaning of the Metaphor ‘Father’ for God in the Bible,” JETS 39 (1996) 436–37; Ricoeur, Rule of Metaphor, 174, also p. 248.

53. Korpel, Rift in the Clouds, 55–56, citing H. P. Müller; see also Spencer, “Father Ruler,” 437–38.

54. Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language, 59–60; see also Hanne Løland, Silent or Salient Gender? The Interpretation of Gendered God-Language in the Hebrew Bible, Exemplified in Isaiah 42, 46, and 49 (FAT 2/32; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 48–50.

55. See Marc Zvi Brettler, “Incompatible Metaphors for Yhwh in Isaiah 40–66,” JSOT 78 (1998) 102, who makes a similar point with regard to metaphors.

Introduction 13

tween tenor and vehicle. By contrast, a simile that provides a single explicit point of comparison will likely function merely to illustrate, particularly if the point of comparison is fairly conventional (e.g., “the lion like the ox will eat straw,” Isa 11:7b). Metaphors, however, also differ in this regard and so fall onto a spectrum with those at one end serving more illustrative purposes (see, e.g., Isa 1:3) and those at the other end functioning as full-blown constructive models. 56 Thus, I see metaphor and simile as running on parallel tracks, distinguished more by form than by import. Where a single explicit point of comparison is given, however, I contend that the metaphorical “is” carries slightly greater force than the “like” of a simile.

A Hermeneutic of Metaphor. The understanding of metaphor outlined above raises an important hermeneutical question. If, as Ricoeur argues, the power of metaphor lies largely in its creative potentiality, what limits are there to how far a metaphor may be taken? I suggest three means of focusing and limiting interpretation of metaphor, while still allowing for fruitful imaginative construction within those bounds: (1) exploring the associated commonplaces of the vehicle in the writer’s cultural context, (2) assessing the metaphor’s interaction with other metaphors depicting the same subject in the near literary context, and (3) noting how other de-tails in the literary context bear on the metaphor. The relative helpfulness of each of these principles varies from context to context, and thus they do not all receive equal attention in each passage. While most studies of biblical metaphor have given attention to associated commonplaces (1) and literary context (3), few have made a concerted effort to understand metaphors in light of their interaction with other metaphors (2). Thus, this point deserves further discussion.

Complex realities can be expressed only by means of multiple meta-phors that complement but also stand in tension with and critique one another, each pointing to particular aspects of a multifaceted subject. 57 While these metaphors are not wholly consistent, they generally overlap (that is, have some shared entailments) and thus may be seen as coherent. 58 In a monograph-length study of parental metaphors for Yhwh in Isaiah 40–55, Sarah Dille examines the interaction between different metaphors used to describe Yhwh within a particular passage. Contending that “interacting metaphors highlight shared commonplaces,” she focuses on areas of overlap between the various metaphors. 59 While this approach proves fruitful, she does not extend it further to consider how the metaphors critique and limit

56. See Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “Two Unifying Female Images in the Book of Isaiah,” in Uncovering Ancient Stones (ed. Lewis M. Hopfe; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994) 20–22, esp. p. 22 n. 20; also note Caird’s discussion of the “varying degrees of correspon-dence between vehicle and tenor” (Language and Imagery, 153).

57. See Brettler, “Incompatible Metaphors,” 120; Lakoff and Turner, More Than Cool Reason, 52–53.

58. Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, 93–96.59. Dille, Mixing Metaphors, 1, emphasis mine.

Chapter 114

each other. Marc Zvi Brettler engages in the latter type of reflection in an ar-ticle entitled “Incompatible Metaphors for Yhwh in Isaiah 40–66,” noting, for example, with regard to Isa 44:21–22 that the compassion Yhwh demon-strates as Israel’s redeemer shapes the text’s simultaneous portrayal of him as their master. 60 As these studies by Dille and Brettler demonstrate, areas of both overlap and conflict between metaphors interacting in a particular passage can offer clues as to how each metaphor should be interpreted.

Rhetorical Criticism

In addition to discerning what each metaphor means within its par-ticular context, this study also employs rhetorical criticism in a limited fashion in order to determine each metaphor’s rhetorical function. Rhe-torical criticism has been a quickly growing feature on the landscape of biblical studies since Muilenburg’s landmark SBL address in 1968, in which he advocated the new method as a means of focusing on the particulari-ties of a text, supplementing form criticism’s concentration on its typical elements. 61 Muilenburg’s rhetorical-critical approach involves determining the limits of a passage and following its “sequence and movement” and “the shifts or breaks in the development of the writer’s thought” by paying close attention to rhetorical devices. 62 Some biblical rhetorical criticism has followed in Muilenburg’s wake, focusing primarily on identifying a text’s unique stylistic features; 63 however, that approach does not reflect the type of rhetorical criticism used by scholars outside the realm of biblical studies, which aims instead at analyzing a text’s persuasive strategy and effect. 64

That approach is exemplified by rhetorical critic George Kennedy, who applies the categories and canons of classical Greek rhetoric to the study of the New Testament. He acknowledges that there is no evidence that ancient Israelites consciously theorized about rhetoric but contends that the Bible demonstrates their concern for persuasive speech. Moreover, Ken-nedy points out that Aristotle, on whom he is largely dependent, under-

60. Brettler, “Incompatible Metaphors,” 110.61. James Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88 (1969) 5, 18.62. Ibid., 10, also pp. 8–9. His approach is illustrated in his commentary: idem, “Isaiah

40–66,” in IB 5:381–773.63. E.g., Phyllis Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah (GBS;

Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994); Richard J. Clifford, Fair Spoken and Persuading: An Interpreta-tion of Second Isaiah (New York: Paulist, 1984); Paul A. Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth, and Authorship of Isaiah 56–66 (Leiden: Brill, 1995).

64. Some biblical scholars who advocate the latter approach include Michael V. Fox, “The Rhetoric of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Valley of the Bones,” in The Place Is Too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 176–78; C. Clifton Black, “Keeping Up with Recent Studies XVI: Rhetorical Criticism and Biblical Interpretation,” ExpTim 100 (1989) 254; Yehoshua Gitay, Prophecy and Persuasion: A Study of Isaiah 40–48 (FTL 14; Bonn: Linguistica Biblica, 1981) 27. Wilhelm Wuellner sees rhetorical criticism of this type as providing “liberation from the Babylonian captiv-ity of rhetoric reduced to stylistics” (“Where Is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us?” CBQ 49 [1987] 457).

Introduction 15

stood his task not as articulating an understanding of specifically Greek rhetoric but rather as conveying universal principles of communication. 65

Many biblical scholars have adopted Kennedy’s five-step method for an-alyzing a text’s rhetoric, 66 and a simplified version of his approach provides the basic framework for this study. Following Kennedy, I first determine the limits of each rhetorical unit—understood as a literary, not an oral, en-tity—by identifying structural features used to mark transitions. Second, I consider the rhetorical situation of the unit, insofar as it can be recon-structed from the text. The rhetorical situation is the set of exigencies that appear to have produced the prophetic utterance, taken in its final form, and which the passage seeks to address and/or transform. 67 It may include the concerns and attitudes of the implied audience and/or the broad out-lines of the assumed historical situation but will generally transcend spe-cific historical details. 68

Third, I determine the type of rhetoric being used with respect to its aim. Some biblical rhetorical critics have adopted Aristotle’s threefold classifica-tion of the species (or genres) of rhetoric, 69 but this system of classification may not adequately cover the various types of Hebrew rhetoric. 70 For this reason—and in order to avoid overloading this study with unnecessary ter-minology—I simply describe the rhetorical aim of each passage rather than using Aristotle’s categories. Finally, I make observations concerning the ar-rangement and style of the passage, as these pertain to our understanding of the rhetorical function of the metaphor under consideration. 71

65. George Alexander Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criti-cism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984) 10–11.

66. See especially C. Clifton Black and Duane F. Watson, eds., Words Well Spoken: George Kennedy’s Rhetoric of the New Testament (SRR; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008); Wuellner, “Where Is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us?” 455–58; Karl Möller, “Rhe-torical Criticism,” DTIB 690; Reed Lessing, “Preaching Like the Prophets: Using Rhetorical Criticism in the Appropriation of Old Testament Prophetic Literature,” ConJ 28 (2002) 391–408. See also Gitay, Prophecy and Persuasion; idem, Isaiah and His Audience: The Struc-ture and Meaning of Isaiah 1–12 (Assen: van Gorcum, 1991).

67. See Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 33–35.68. For example, in Isa 1:2–20, the fact that much of Judah has recently been devas-

tated by an enemy invasion is crucial to the rhetorical situation, though it makes little difference to the argument of the passage whether the destruction is attributed to the Assyrian invasion of 701 b.c. or the later Babylonian invasion (Yehoshua Gitay, “Reflec-tions on the Study of the Prophetic Discourse: The Question of Isaiah I 2–20,” VT 33 [1983] 216–17; see also idem, “Prophetic Criticism: ‘What Are They Doing?’ The Case of Isaiah—A Methodological Assessment,” JSOT 96 [2001] 116).

69. I.e., judicial, deliberative, and epideictic rhetoric (see further Kennedy, NT Interpreta-tion, 19–20, 36–37; Aristotle, Rhet. 1.3.1358b).

70. See Lessing, “Preaching Like the Prophets,” 407. Kennedy also classifies the type of rhetoric with respect to its means of persuasion, relying on Aristotle’s categories of ethos, pathos, and logos (NT Interpretation, 15–16; see Aristotle, Rhet. 1.2.1356a), but that classifi-cation is not helpful for my purposes.

71. For Kennedy, analysis of the unit’s arrangement involves dividing the unit into parts based on the “conventional structure” of its particular species of rhetoric (NT Inter-pretation, 23–24; similarly Gitay, Prophecy and Persuasion, 36, 39); however, I will seek to

Chapter 116

While I rely on these methods as I analyze each metaphorical occur-rence, they do not rigidly control my approach. Because each text presents its own exegetical challenges, I strive to allow the text to set the agenda, treating these methods as tools to be employed wherever they help to bring out the meaning and rhetorical force of each metaphor in its broader context.

Chapter Summary

This study first examines each of the household metaphors for Israel and Zion separately (chaps. 2–5) 72 and then draws together the results of these individual analyses in order to explore their interrelationships (chap. 6). Chapters 2–5 each begin by broadly surveying the background of each metaphor by examining (1) ancient Israelite perceptions (or as-sociated commonplaces) 73 of the relational role on which the metaphor is based (e.g., children) and (2) similar uses of the metaphor in ANE texts and elsewhere in the HB. The goal of this survey is not to establish direct influence, except where a particular text seems to provide an important background for Isaiah’s use of the metaphor, but rather to illuminate the “cognitive environment” 74 in which the book of Isaiah was written. These chapters then analyze each of the relevant passages, which are grouped by categories of usage, moving sequentially through the book of Isaiah within each category. 75 The exegesis of each text is not exhaustive but is directed toward interpreting how each metaphor functions in its context and dis-cerning its rhetorical force, using the resources of metaphor theory and rhetorical criticism. Finally, each body chapter concludes with a summary of the rhetorical uses of the metaphor, considering whether it is possible to trace any development in the use of these metaphors throughout the book.

discern the arrangement of the passages solely by means of their own internal logic (see also Black, “Keeping Up,” 255).

Kennedy’s fifth step involves both assessing the success of the unit in addressing its rhetorical situation and contemplating its effects on the audience (NT Interpretation, 38), but that goes beyond my aim of understanding how the relational metaphors fit into the rhetorical purposes of the implied author.

72. The mother and wife metaphors will be treated together in a single chapter (chap. 4) because they appear least frequently and, more importantly, because they are inextricably intertwined within the book. The wife image never appears apart from that of mother, though the latter appears in a few texts without the former (see p. 194).

73. See p. 8.74. A phrase taken from John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Tes-

tament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006) 21–23.

75. See p. 196.

17

Chapter 2

The People of Israel as Sons/Children

The first metaphor we will examine is the people of Israel as בנים, which forms an inclusio around the book (1:2–4, 66:7–14). 1 Initially, Isaiah por-trays the people as the בנים of Yhwh (1:2, 4; 30:1, 9; 43:6; 45:11; cf. 63:8, 16; 64:7[8]; 66:13), but as the female personification of Zion gains prominence in the latter chapters of the book, it also depicts them as the בנים of their city-mother (49:17, 20, 22, 25; 50:1; 51:18, 20; 54:1, 13; 57:3; 60:4, 9; 62:5; 66:8; also 37:3). 2

Sons or Children?

Because Isaiah never describes Israel as the (sg.) בן of Yhwh or Zion but only as their (pl.) בנים, it is unclear whether בנים denotes sons or children of both genders. For the most part, references to both Yhwh’s and Zion’s seem to point to the people of Israel as a whole. 3 Moreover, when used בניםof their relationship with Yhwh, the highlighted aspects of the metaphor

1. See Jacqueline E. Lapsley, “‘Look! The Children and I Are As Signs and Portents in Israel’: Children in Isaiah,” in The Child in the Bible (ed. Marcia J. Bunge, Terence E. Fretheim, and Beverly Roberts Gaventa; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008) 101.

2. Other Hebrew terms for children applied to the people of Israel in Isaiah include ,(”[male [child“) זכר child”), and“) ילד ,(”offspring, descendant“) צאצא ,(”offspring“) זרעbut these are used metaphorically only alongside references to Israel as בנים and so will be discussed in those contexts.

Some scholars also see the parent-child metaphor in 46:3, contending that Yhwh’s ad-dress to “you who have been borne from birth, who have been carried from the womb” portrays the people as emerging from Yhwh’s womb (see, e.g., Hanne Løland, Silent or Salient Gender? The Interpretation of Gendered God-Language in the Hebrew Bible, Exemplified in Isaiah 42, 46, and 49 [FAT 2/32; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008] 141–58; Leila Leah Bronner, “Gynomorphic Imagery in Exilic Isaiah [40–66],” DD 12 [1983] 77). However, the text does not clearly make that identification (see Chris A. Franke, “‘Like a Mother I Have Comforted You’: The Function of Figurative Language in Isaiah 1:7–26 and 66:7–14,” in The Desert Will Bloom: Poetic Visions in Isaiah [ed. A. Joseph Everson and Hyun Chul Paul Kim; SBLAIL 4; Atlanta: SBL, 2009] 49 n. 45; cf. 44:2, 24), and the point of vv. 3–4 is that Yhwh carries the people from birth to old age, in contrast to Babylon’s idols, who need to be carried themselves.

3. See Irmtraud Fischer, “Das Buch Jesaja. Das Buch der weiblichen Metaphern,” in Kompendium Feministische Bibelauslegung (ed. Luise Schottroff and Marie-Theres Wacker; Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1998) 254; also Norbert Clemens Baumgart, “Wenn Jhwh Kinder erzieht: Zum Gottesbild im Jesajabuch aus religionsgeschichtlicher und kanonisch-inter-textueller Perspektive,” in Das Echo des Propheten Jesaja: Beiträge zu seiner vielfältigen Rezep-

Chapter 218

are characteristics common to both sons and daughters. In portrayals of the people’s relationship with Mother Zion, however, uniquely masculine aspects of the vehicle sometimes come into play. Thus, I generally refer to the “children of Yhwh” but at times speak of the “sons of Zion.”

Associated Commonplaces of the Vehicle: Children

Although socioeconomic conditions and social institutions in ancient Israel varied over the course of its history, the בית אב (“house[hold] of the father”), an extended family encompassing three or four generations living together in a family compound, consistently formed the core of Israelite society and thus remained relatively stable. 4 Moreover, given the need for members of the family to work together in order to maintain their subsis-tence in the largely agrarian setting of ancient Israel, an individual’s per-sonal identity was inextricably bound up with his or her familial role(s). 5 Since it was through children, particularly sons, that the life and land of the family, clan, and tribe were extended across generations, having chil-dren was viewed as a great blessing in ancient Israel (Ps 127:4–5; cf. Deut 28:4, 11). 6 Conversely, barrenness produced shame and despair (Gen 30:1–3, 1 Sam 1:6–7), and losing an only child was devastating ( Judg 11:34–35, Jer 6:26, Amos 8:10), because both threatened the family with extinction. 7

tion (ed. Norbert Clemens Baumgart and Gerhard Ringshausen; Münster: Lit, 2004) 1, who notes the parallels with גוי (“nation,” 1:4) and עם (“people,” 1:4; 30:9; 60:21; 62:10, 12).

4. See Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (LAI; Louisville: West-minster John Knox, 2001) 39; Rainer Kessler, The Social History of Ancient Israel: An Introduc-tion (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008) 5. Paula M. McNutt, however, suggests that the nuclear family may have been more central to everyday life (Reconstruct-ing the Society of Ancient Israel [LAI; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999] 90; see also S. Bendor, The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family (Beit ʾAb) from the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy [ JBS 7; Jerusalem: Simor, 1996] 121–23; Rainer Albertz and Rüdiger Schmitt, Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012] 42). There is debate about whether urban households were comprised of nuclear or extended families (see Aaron J. Brody, “The Archaeology of the Extended Family: A Household Compound from Iron II Tell en Nabeh,” in Household Ar-chaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond [ed. Assaf Yasur-Landau, Jennie R. Ebeling, and Laura B. Mazow; CHANE 50; Leiden: Brill, 2011] 254; Avraham Faust “Household Economies in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah,” in Household Archaeology, 257).

5. See Carol Meyers, “The Family in Early Israel,” in Families in Ancient Israel (ed. Leo G. Perdue et al.; FRC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 21–22. Elsewhere, she notes the importance of “family integrity” even in urban environments (idem, “Everyday Life: Women in the Period of the Hebrew Bible,” in Women’s Bible Commentary [ed. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe; rev. ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998] 258; see also Bendor, Social Structure, 219).

6. C. J. H. Wright, “Family,” ABD 2:766. As Meyers points out, children were also nec-essary to increase the family’s labor output (“Family in Early Israel,” 27).

7. Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of God (LCBI; Louisville: West-minster John Knox, 1994) 51; Daniel I. Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel,” in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World (ed. Ken M. Campbell; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003) 81–82.

The People of Israel as Sons/Children 19

The survival of the family, and by extension society as a whole, was also endangered by children (especially sons) who rebelled against their parents by rejecting their authority. 8 Thus, a high value was placed on honoring and obeying parents (Exod 20:12, Lev 19:3, Prov 6:20), and persistent fil-ial disobedience was a serious offense. A “stubborn” (סרר) and “rebellious” ”son who would “not listen to the voice of his father or . . . mother (מרה)could even receive the death penalty (Deut 21:18–21). However, despite the considerable legal authority parents exercised over their children, includ-ing the ability to sell them into debt-slavery in cases of extreme economic hardship (Exod 21:7, Neh 5:4–5), 9 the death penalty could be enacted only by the judgment of the village elders. 10

Sons were expected to provide for their parents when they reached old age, 11 and widows who had no sons to care for them were particularly vul-nerable, as the story of Ruth illustrates. Parents, in turn, bore the responsi-bility to instruct their children in both religious and practical matters (Gen 18:19; Deut 4:9, 6:7), 12 as well as to discipline them (Prov 22:15, 23:13, 29:17), which is understood as a demonstration of love (Prov 13:24; cf. 19:18). Despite high expectations of filial obedience, children could un-doubtedly rely on the nearly unbreakable parent-child bond, expecting steadfast love, compassion, and forgiveness from their parents (Ps 103:13). 13

The People of Israel as Yhwh’s Children

As the opening image of Isaiah (1:2–4), the portrait of the people of Israel as Yhwh’s children is central to their characterization, appearing in some form in each of the major sections of the book.

ANE Background

Israel was not unique in using the parent-child metaphor to describe its relationship with God. ANE texts portray various deities as the parents

8. Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Family in First Temple Israel,” in Families in Ancient Israel (ed. Leo G. Perdue et al.; FRC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 70–71; Elizabeth Bellefontaine, “Deuteronomy 21:18–21: Reviewing the Case of the Rebellious Son,” JSOT 13 (1979) 17; Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy ( JPSTC; Philadelphia: Jewish Publi-cation Society, 1996) 196; Caryn A. Reeder, The Enemy in the Household: Family Violence in Deuteronomy and Beyond (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012) 43–44.

9. Leo G. Perdue, “The Israelite and Early Jewish Family: Summary and Conclusions,” in Families in Ancient Israel (ed. Leo G. Perdue et al.; FRC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 190.

10. See Wright, ABD 2:767; Bellefontaine, “Deuteronomy 21:18–21,” 24.11. Block, “Marriage and Family,” 93–94; Perdue, “Israelite and Early Jewish Family,”

190.12. Christopher J. H. Wright, “ָאב,” NIDOTTE 1:220.13. Tikva Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical

Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York: Free Press, 1992) 162–63. On the emotional ties between parents and children, see Gen 25:28; 37:3, 34–35; Judg 11:34–35.

Chapter 220

of humankind or of a representative figure, such as the king. 14 For exam-ple, in Sumer-Akkad the legitimation of the king was sometimes related to Enlil’s fatherhood and described in procreative terms. 15 Moreover, in the “Lamentation Over the Destruction of Ur,” the goddess Ningal laments before her husband Nanna over the loss of her “sons and daughters,” the people of Ur, who have been sent into exile. A mourner then complains that “Mother Ningal” has abandoned the city and attributes its destruction to “Father Nanna,” drawing the god’s attention to the resulting cessation of his temple service. 16 The text implies both the gods’ parental responsibility to protect the people and their duty as children to maintain the operation of the cult. 17 Finally, a supplicant compares Marduk’s heart to that of his parents when seeking the god’s compassion. 18

While the Egyptian sun god Re was often portrayed as the father of Pharaoh, 19 Amun became known as “mother and father for all eyes” or, more restrictively, “of the one who places him in his heart,” 20 emphasizing the necessity of devotion for those who seek to be his children. Moreover, Amun’s concern for the needy is expressed by his designation as “the father of the motherless.” 21 In the Ugaritic Kirta epic, El is repeatedly called “the Father of Man,” perhaps due to his perceived role in creating humankind, 22 though the context emphasizes his self-revelation, authority, and benefi-cence. 23 El demonstrates his paternal role toward King Kirta by his concern and provision, while Kirta honors his divine father with a sacrifice. 24

Some scholars read the biblical parent-child metaphor against the back-ground of ANE vassal treaties, which sometimes use father-son language to describe the relationship between suzerain and vassal. Moreover, F. Charles

14. For the structure of the following survey and several of the subsequent references, see David R. Tasker, Ancient Near Eastern Literature and the Hebrew Scriptures about the Father-hood of God (StBL 69; New York: Peter Lang, 2004) 15–77.

15. Richard D. Patterson, “Parental Love as a Metaphor for Divine-Human Love,” JETS 46 (2003) 207.

16. Lines 283–84, 351, 373–78, 407 (see the still-classic work by Samuel N. Kramer, Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur [AS 12; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940] 50–51, 60–67; somewhat differently, Thorkild Jacobsen, The Harps that Once . . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987] 465, 472).

17. On the aspect of divine protection, see also a prayer found in Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963) 128.

18. Baumgart, “Wenn Jhwh Kinder erzieht,” 5. 19. See James K. Hoffmeier, “Son of God: From Pharaoh to Israel’s Kings to Jesus,” BRev

13, no. 3 (1997) 45; Patterson, “Parental Love,” 207.20. Jan Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt (trans. David Lorton; Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press, 2001) 220; noted by Baumgart, “Wenn Jhwh Kinder erzieht,” 7–8.21. Assmann, Search for God, 223.22. Marjo C. A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine

(Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990) 235–36.23. CTU 1.14 I.37, 43; III.32, 47; VI.13, 32 (UNP 12–42). 24. El’s concern for Kirta: CTU I.41(?); II.6; IV.6. Kirta honors El: CTU II.24; elsewhere

Kirta is described as El’s “servant” (III.49, 51; VI.34–35).

The People of Israel as Sons/Children 21

Fensham argues that “son” and “servant” are often used interchangeably in vassal treaty contexts, as exemplified in the biblical text by Ahaz’ address to Tiglath-pileser in 2 Kgs 16:7. 25 Because Isaiah refers to the people of Israel as both “children” and “servant(s)” of Yhwh, it must be considered whether these are simply synonymous terms indicating a covenantal relationship. As Frank Moore Cross contends, however, to see “the language of ‘brother-hood’ and ‘fatherhood,’ ‘love,’ and ‘loyalty’” as “covenant terminology” is to look at the situation backward. In a covenant, two parties enter into a kinship-like relationship. 26

The Use of the Metaphor Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible

That the metaphor of Israel as Yhwh’s child(ren) cannot simply be re-duced to an indicator of the covenant is also suggested by the fact that it appears in the Exodus narrative prior to the establishment of the Sinai covenant (Exod 4:22–23) and continues to function when the covenant has been broken ( Jer 31:9, 18–20). 27 Moreover, the biblical authors go far beyond ANE treaty texts in exploring how Yhwh birthed and cared for his child(ren).

In Exod 4:22–23, Yhwh instructs Moses to ground his plea to Pharaoh to let the Israelites go in Israel’s status as Yhwh’s “firstborn son” (בני בכרי; cf. Hos 11:1). The designation “firstborn” may imply that all the nations are Yhwh’s children while Israel occupies a special place of honor. 28 Elsewhere, the metaphor is linked with Yhwh carrying, guiding, and providing for Israel in the wilderness (Deut 1:31, Hos 11:3–4) but also with his paternal discipline (Deut 8:5; cf. Prov 3:12). Moreover, it provides a basis for reli-gious prescriptions (Deut 14:1) and expectations of filial honor (Mal 1:6),

25. F. Charles Fensham, “Father and Son as Terminology for Treaty and Covenant,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. Hans Goedicke; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971) 125, 128–29; see also Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Social World of Ancient Israel, 1250–587 BCE (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993) 8; Dennis J. McCarthy, “Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy and the Father-Son Relationship between Yahweh and Israel,” CBQ 27 (1965) 145; Antony Tharekadavil, Servant of Yahweh in Second Isaiah: Isaianic Servant Passages in Their Literary and Historical Context (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2007) 85–87, 103–5.

26. Frank Moore Cross, “Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel,” in From Epic to Canon (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) 11; see also J. David Schloen, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East (SAHL 2; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001) 1; M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970) 194.

27. Wright, NIDOTTE 1:222; see also Brent A. Strawn, “‘Israel, My Child’: The Ethics of a Biblical Metaphor,” in The Child in the Bible (ed. Marcia J. Bunge, Terence E. Fretheim, and Beverly Roberts Gaventa; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008) 113–14.

28. Cf. Deut 32:8, Jer 3:19; see also Chrys C. Caragounis, “ֵּבן,” NIDOTTE 1:676; Strawn, “Israel, My Child,” 126–27; Tasker, ANE Literature, 85; as well as Freder